I have to do a report on it.
To what extent should the media be censored? If you were in charge, how would you go about censoring it?
or what are your opinions on it whatever
Here's a good place to go (http://www.parentstv.com/)
I wouldn't censor anything. Fuck political correctness. If the world wasn't so sue-happy, people would actually laugh at what's normally censored. And besides, if you really wanted to censor stuff, you'd have to block the Internet for any child under the age of 18, anyways.
No censor.
Well, if it were up to me, I'd start off by not hiding any full-frontal nudity from minors. I can understand the whole PORN CENSORSHIP, but that's a whole new ball game.
Secondly, I still haven't decided my opinion on censoring bad language. Seems to me, the people of the future are starting to swear a lot more and use it as the way they talk.
Quote from: Velcro on May 28, 2009, 05:14:19 PM
Secondly, I still haven't decided my opinion on censoring bad language. Seems to me, the people of the future are starting to swear a lot more and use it as the way they talk.
for the most part that's a common misconception
every generation thinks that the forthcoming generation is more profane; hell, the greeks and romans had plenty of drawings of guys with huge dongs plowing fat chicks akudood;
my guess is that it has to do with the proliferation of mass media; when a new medium like books or films is first adopted, it has a tendency to be heavily censored, with that easing up over time e.g. there's plenty of bawdy books from the 1800s and 1900s, but not many bawdy shows from the 1950s akudood;
but really profanity in speech has been fairly consistent: avoided in formal settings, commonly used amongst the working class and in private
hell, a lot of the profanities still in use today, like shit, cunt, and fuck can be traced back to at least 1200 ad, if not further
lots of fishermen and sailors who spoke germanic languages had some dirty mouths bassir;
oh, and speaking of cunt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gropecunt_Lane) akudood;
Quote from: guff on June 05, 2009, 05:32:46 PM
for the most part that's a common misconception
every generation thinks that the forthcoming generation is more profane; hell, the greeks and romans had plenty of drawings of guys with huge dongs plowing fat chicks akudood;
my guess is that it has to do with the proliferation of mass media; when a new medium like books or films is first adopted, it has a tendency to be heavily censored, with that easing up over time e.g. there's plenty of bawdy books from the 1800s and 1900s, but not many bawdy shows from the 1950s akudood;
but really profanity in speech has been fairly consistent: avoided in formal settings, commonly used amongst the working class and in private
hell, a lot of the profanities still in use today, like shit, cunt, and fuck can be traced back to at least 1200 ad, if not further
lots of fishermen and sailors who spoke germanic languages had some dirty mouths bassir;
oh, and speaking of cunt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gropecunt_Lane) akudood;
Perhaps. But I guess I'm just looking at this in a way that if you look at the way people talk today, compared to the way people talked in the '50s, you'd notice a big difference.
The internet is so huge, it's impossible to monitor. We're starting to see the trend in reverse.
Quote from: Velcro on June 07, 2009, 01:44:42 PM
Perhaps. But I guess I'm just looking at this in a way that if you look at the way people talk today, compared to the way people talked in the '50s, you'd notice a big difference.
uh no not really
just because the holdovers we have from the '50s seem tame now doesn't mean they were then
also, the '50s wasn't actually in black and white like it is on tv just thought you should know akudood;
Quote from: guff on June 07, 2009, 06:01:36 PM
uh no not really
just because the holdovers we have from the '50s seem tame now doesn't mean they were then
also, the '50s wasn't actually in black and white like it is on tv just thought you should know akudood;
whoa trippy akudood;
Quote from: Velcro on June 07, 2009, 01:44:42 PM
Perhaps. But I guess I'm just looking at this in a way that if you look at the way people talk today, compared to the way people talked in the '50s, you'd notice a big difference.
You need to watch less TV, clearly.
Quote from: Kaz on June 07, 2009, 09:55:31 PM
You need to watch less TV, clearly.
no don't you get it leave it to beaver was a documentary akudood;
Quote from: Kaz on June 07, 2009, 09:55:31 PM
You need to watch less TV, clearly.
I'm not even remotely using TV as my view.
Quote from: Kaz on June 07, 2009, 09:55:31 PM
You need to watch less TV, clearly.
yeah instead he should jump in his time machine like you did right
Quote from: Velcro on June 08, 2009, 09:48:45 AM
I'm not even remotely using TV as my view.
what are you using akudood;
Quote from: guff on June 08, 2009, 10:06:07 AM
what are you using akudood;
Well, my strongest one would have to be novels. I feel that they kinda give a good sense of what the reality is. Take
The Outsiders, for example. That type of story is so much different than a story today.
Also, while we're on the topic of censorship and the past. Keep in mind that there was still porn back then. wariodood;
There were still restrictions, however. It was very controversial when it wasn't heterosexual. My whole point is that we shouldn't really hide cussing from minors. I just find it unnecessary.
Quote from: Velcro on June 08, 2009, 10:14:23 AM
Well, my strongest one would have to be novels. I feel that they kinda give a good sense of what the reality is.
uh okay how about catcher in the rye, which was published in '51 and often banned for its profanity and whatnot akudood;
Quote from: Velcro on June 08, 2009, 10:14:23 AM
Take The Outsiders, for example. That type of story is so much different than a story today.
that was published in '67, and was written by a teenager as young adult fiction do you have any idea what you're talking about doodhuh;
Quote from: Velcro on June 08, 2009, 10:14:23 AM
Also, while we're on the topic of censorship and the past. Keep in mind that there was still porn back then. wariodood;
have you read anything i've said so far akudood;
Quote from: guff on June 08, 2009, 10:38:31 AM
that was published in '67
i was just going to say that
mike, from what i've read, your logic is 'oh well kids are going to hear swear words eventually, so why bother trying to hide it from them?' and that kind of logic hardly ever works. why are there laws stating at what age you can view R-rated movies or buy pornography then? because people are generally mature enough to handle those types of things at that age, and when they are kids they might develop extremely skewed or unrealistic views from movies or the flawless women in pornography. at the legal age for viewing either form of entertainment, we have acquired enough intelligence to realize that criminals rarely ever get away with murder, or that not every woman is going to have enormous boobs and want to have sex all the time.
Quote from: guff on June 08, 2009, 10:38:31 AM
uh okay how about catcher in the rye, which was published in '51 and often banned for its profanity and whatnot akudood;
Exactly what I'm trying to get to.
Quote from: Det in Fââ,,¢Â¯ Major on June 08, 2009, 02:11:31 PM
i was just going to say that
mike, from what i've read, your logic is 'oh well kids are going to hear swear words eventually, so why bother trying to hide it from them?' and that kind of logic hardly ever works. why are there laws stating at what age you can view R-rated movies or buy pornography then? because people are generally mature enough to handle those types of things at that age, and when they are kids they might develop extremely skewed or unrealistic views from movies or the flawless women in pornography. at the legal age for viewing either form of entertainment, we have acquired enough intelligence to realize that criminals rarely ever get away with murder, or that not every woman is going to have enormous boobs and want to have sex all the time.
But that's not my point. Pornography is different, and I think that should be hidden. All I'm saying is that I think we can stretch the censorship in the media and still be mature about it.
guys i already did the project and i got an A we can stop talking about it thanks
Quote from: Velcro on June 08, 2009, 04:48:27 PM
Exactly what I'm trying to get to.
uh no not at all
you're contending that the past was not as profane as the present; i've shown that is very not true akudood;
Quote from: Henry Hatsworth on June 08, 2009, 04:57:11 PM
guys i already did the project and i got an A we can stop talking about it thanks
yeah but quailo is retarded akudood;
Quote from: guff on June 08, 2009, 05:37:12 PM
uh no not at all
you're contending that the past was not as profane as the present; i've shown that is very not true akudood;
yeah but quailo is retarded akudood;
Whatever.
I believe media censorship is at the appropriate level right now. I honestly don't need to have any chance at viewing any form of decapitation, surgery or a nude scene while flipping through the channels while snacking. Likewise overly explicit and graphic language make many feel uncomfortable, and is best saved for later viewing hours. However I don't see any need for censorship of all channels, I wouldn't for example object to there being mature oriented channels that could be optionally activated or blocked.
As for the internet, as long as it's not illegal it's fine, although it is a bit iffy for a pornography/shock sites to purposely name their address similarly to popular children websites.
I do not see any reason to censor CDs, games, or DVDs, although a warning label is a nice courtesy to the consumer.
sometimes i think R-rated movies are just ridiculous with the amount of profanity they have
i think the writers intentionally use fucking for an adjective for practically every noun
sometimes i think, okay this is just ridiculously excessive, nobody ever swears this much in normal speech
Quote from: Det in Fââ,,¢Â¯ Major on June 09, 2009, 06:31:18 PM
sometimes i think R-rated movies are just ridiculous with the amount of profanity they have
i think the writers intentionally use fucking for an adjective for practically every noun
i do that all the fucking time.
I hate the MPAA they can't do Their Job.
Quote from: JaleelWhite320 on June 09, 2009, 07:21:42 PM
I hate the MPAA they can't do There Job.
The word is "their".
And unless you're talking about Job from The Bible it's not a proper noun.
Quote from: Crazy Fucking Raccoon on June 09, 2009, 07:47:11 PM
The word is "their".
And unless you're talking about Job from The Bible it's not a proper noun.
I think i fixed it.
Quote from: Crazy Fucking Raccoon on June 09, 2009, 07:18:03 PM
i do that all the fucking time.
if that were an actual line, it'd be more like "i goddamn fucking do that all the fucking time, shit fuck cunt bitch piss fuck."
It shouldn't be. I'm sick of people telling children that the world is so perfect.
What do you mean by "media"?
...and are these white emotes teeth?
Quote from: Shadow_Sheik on June 10, 2009, 03:18:27 PM
What do you mean by "media"?
...and are these white emotes teeth?
I think it originally was about the media in the sense of the news channels, news papers, and radio stations. It then moved to media like music, movies, books.
Also doodthing is a squid. akudood;
Quote from: Shadow_Sheik on June 10, 2009, 03:18:27 PMthese white emotes teeth?
yes but the black and green and red one with a bad disposition is the shapeshifting master of darkness akudood;
Quote from: guff on June 10, 2009, 07:16:41 PM
yes but the black and green and red one with a bad disposition is the shapeshifting master of darkness akudood;
its a cavity with tartar on it guff don't lie akudood;
guys this discussion isn't serious enough
Get rid of parental advisory stickers please, it makes me feel like a nerd buying an album with one on it.
Media censorship is unjustified in all cases.
Quote from: Jet Black Wii on July 11, 2009, 11:13:01 AM
Media censorship is unjustified in all cases.
What about protecting young children from seeing things that they shouldn't be exposed to?
Quote from: Henry Hatsworth on July 11, 2009, 05:45:58 PM
What about protecting young children from seeing things that they shouldn't be exposed to?
Paaaareeennntsss
Quote from: burzumfan420 on July 11, 2009, 06:03:31 PM
Paaaareeennntsss
My parents did their best, and I was able to get around them to view things that I'll admit I shouldn't have been viewing.
Quote from: Henry Hatsworth on July 12, 2009, 11:44:14 AM
My parents did their best, and I was able to get around them to view things that I'll admit I shouldn't have been viewing.
Children are always going to find a way around the system, sir.
I first saw porn when I was eight. I was exposed to gay porn by my other eight year-old cousin.
I don't find that the fault of my grandparents (whose house I was in).
I would have seen it anyway. I didn't get screwed up or anything from it.
Quote from: Henry Hatsworth on July 12, 2009, 11:44:14 AM
My parents did their best, and I was able to get around them to view things that I'll admit I shouldn't have been viewing.
today parents can control everything if they took the time. Their are rating systems for movies and albums. Parental controls for computers and TVs!
but trying to keep your child away from "nasty stuff" is impossible, yet i believe should try to do what they can to keep the shit until they are old enough (idk what old enough is)
Quote from: Geno on May 27, 2009, 07:10:50 PM
Here's a good place to go (http://www.parentstv.com/)
'Cops' is in the red, so real life shouldn't be seen.